People who are in favour of grammar schools....

[BertrandRussell]

....what is your proposal for the majority who are not selected?

irvineoneohone Wed 21-Sep-16 11:14:34 MumTryingHerBest , Noble and others, sorry, my comment was irrelevant and wrong.

Your post wasn't irrelevant or wrong.

Many supporters think that Grammar schools are esential for maximising the performance of the brightest DCs in the country. The truth is the brightest DCs may well still not have the education provision they need no matter how many Grammar schools are opened.

"'This on its own is enough to make sure you separate your children from the 'ner do wells' who frequent 'non selective' schools."

So essentially you want your children to attend grammar schools so they don't have to mix with ''ner do wells'?

Fuck, we really are going back to the Victorian era.

Almost as good as the famous "dregs" comment.........

BR and MF, you've devoted this entire thread to the children of parents who don't care about their children's education, given that their prospects are so grim. Are you upset with these parents, or is all your anger reserved for the parents who send their children to grammars?

You do know that it's much more complicated than that, don't you?

Kent which is all selective has double the number (of failing schools) of the next worst

Surely the main reason for this is that Kent has considerably more schools than any other local education authority. Out of 151 LEAs Kent is by far the largest with over 105 mainstream secondary schools and over 16,000 pupils eligible for GCSEs in any one year. Knowsley LEA which is right at the bottom of the league tables doesn't have 20 'failing' secondary schools because it only has 6 mainstream schools - all of them poor.
This table from 2013 illustrates the difference in pupil population across the LEAs and the sheer size of Kent although the other stats are now out of date:

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/leaguetables/10590223/League-tables-local-education-authority-results.html

What do we mean by 'failing' anyway? Is this a Government label or a Press Association label? Currently, only 2 of Kent's mainstream secondary schools appear to be rated 'Inadequate' out of over 100 schools and only 13 'Require Improvement' - the vast majority are rated 'Good' or 'Outstanding' - in fact 29 are rated 'Outstanding'.

Not forgetting of course that several of Kent's 'failing' mainstream secondary schools have 25-26% SEN due to a lack of government funding for special schools, Kent has several pockets of severe multiple deprivation (most deprived 10% in the country), is the first port of call for asylum seekers and is currently looking after over 900 unaccompanied child refugees.

At the same time some LEAs in London receive up to 60% more funding per pupil:
ioelondonblog.wordpress.com/2014/01/15/the-transformation-of-tower-hamlets-how-they-did-it/

Effective spending "its schools received almost 60% more resource per pupil than the national average".

Unfortunately the government would need to find billions of extra cash per year (not the £50 million earmarked for new grammar schools) in order to give every school in the UK the same level of funding as London schools.

You do know that it's much more complicated than that, don't you?

I'll take that as a 'no', then.

"You do know that it's much more complicated than that, don't you?

I'll take that as a 'no', then."

You can,mid you like. Or you can inform yourself of the issues and join in the debate.

90% of the pupils who attend the said schools are great ,focused lovely and no doubt a credit. However, you are always going to have a 'residual' core of 'arseholes' if you have no way to prevent them from joining a school.

The difference is my DS has just been giving a 2 hour ' Saturday' Detention for the crime of writing on the blackboard that Maths has been cancelled for MR Smith's class by order of the Headmaster. This is deemed to be a offence far worse than a standard 1 hour detention (just old 'fashioned' japes ) for a year 11 boy to commit.

This therefore highlights the differences in the standards of behaviour expected or witnessed , grammar school =childish' japes . This as opposed serious 'criminal' gang behaviour being committed by a sizeable number of 'non selected' school children.

The greatest crime from a grammar school boy was year 13 Jacob Dowdle acting out a scene from 'Tiswas' by pretending to be the 'Phantom' flan thrower.

That incident was condemned on here by everybody , probably the fact of him being a 'middle class' grammar school boy was used by the attack dogs to crucify him.

The same people will be trying to play down an incident last week that by the grace of god nobody was 'killed ' . They will say it is not the fault of the school environment, or family background but because of government policies.

"90% of the pupils who attend the said schools are great ,focused lovely and no doubt a credit"

If you think that, why do you keep posting and linking to things that give the the impression you think the complete opposite?

I have constantly said 10% of pupils should not be educated in mainstream schools!

Sam Freedman Executive Director at Teach First and policy adviser to Michael Gove from 2008-2013 said this in his anti-grammar school blog;

"The poorest children in Tower Hamlets and Westminster now do better than the average for all pupils in selective counties like Kent and Lincolnshire."
We've already read that schools in Tower Hamlets receive up to 60% more funding than other areas.

In 2008 he said this; www.telegraph.co.uk/education/secondaryeducation/3136964/Successful-schools-hugely-oversubscribed-figures-show.html

"It is clear that parents don't want bog standard schools run by the state and that if they cannot afford to go private, they are looking for schools run by non-state providers, be they faith, grammar or academies.

This is particularly true of Westminster as 5 of its 12 secondary schools are faith schools including The Grey Coat Hospital where David Cameron and Michael Gove send their daughters. Faith schools are selective and have much wider catchment areas than their local authority - only 40% of the pupils educated in Westminster live in the borough.

Westminster has its 'bog standard' comprehensive schools as well: Quintin Kynaston which requires improvement - good value added score for low attainers but not good for the high attainers (73% expected progress in maths for the 67 high attainers at ks2) plus Westminster City School currently 'Good' but with only 64% expected progress for high attainers in English and 74% for high attainers in maths.

Mr Freedman says he has a choice of three comprehensive schools for his own (primary school aged) children - it would be interesting to know which ones.

Also rather interesting is the fact that Mr Freedman's father, Sir Lawrence Freedman, previously professor of War Studies at King's College London and a member of the Iraq Inquiry was educated at Whitley Bay Grammar School in Tyneside.

Even more interesting is that Mossbourne Academy (Michael Wilshaw's school) replaced Hackney Downs School which was a boys' grammar school before it went into decline as a comprehensive and later demolished. The Notable Alumni list for the grammar school is one of the most impressive I think I have ever seen for a state school:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hackney_Downs_School
Lots of poor Jewish immigrants included Mr Freedman.

Why is it interesting that Sam Freedman's dad went to a grammar?

correction Freedman was policy adviser from 2009 on Tyneside?

Not sure if these survey results have been posted:
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/parents-divided-grammar-schools-mumsnet_uk_57dfdb12e4b028e52a116428
mumsnet survey results seem evenly split.

As for teachers being very anti grammar schools it seems obligatory for teachers to disagree with any initiative introduced by the government - teachers don't like SATs, repeat of SATs in Year 7, phonics screening, the EBacc or Progress 8 either - I don't think the government are taking much notice of what teachers think. Of course teachers are parents too.
Now I really must go out.

"The same people will be trying to play down an incident last week that by the grace of god nobody was 'killed ' . They will say it is not the fault of the school environment, or family background but because of government policies."

I have followed up on what happened to some of the children from my dd's class at her primary school which is in an impoverished area. One boy is currently in custody awaiting trial for murder. Another boy has been in custody and is now unemployed and estranged from his parents. Two of the girls are NEETS having left school with no GCSE's. Those are just the ones who live near me. All of them come from households with multiple and complex deprivations

• alcoholic parents
• parents with repeated admissions for mental illness
• parents who have been benefits dependent for decades
• domestic violence.

I know you think that underachievement and poor behaviour in school can simply be laid at the door of some children being arseholes, but having known these children from the age of four - their backgrounds and families, I would be amazed if any of them managed to make anything of themselves. I think it's the saddest thing :-(

I think what's sad is that people like you don't see some children as fully human. You don't see the complexities of the challenges that some kids face, you simply want to shove them into ghettoes and forget they exist. You think your own children are VASTLY more deserving.

double correction - scrap the Tyneside!

it seems obligatory for teachers to disagree with any initiative introduced by the government

That's fine. Now explain why every other education professional is also against it. Even the DfE are against it.

Why is it interesting that Sam Freedman's dad went to a grammar?

It's a new one to add to the list of people who aren't allowed to oppose grammars. That list already includes people whose parents sent them to grammars themselves (or private schools) and also those who don't send their own children to failing schools. Of course, now 73% of secondary schools are good or outstanding that might be quite difficult for many people. If we add people whose parents went to grammars to that list then I'd say that leaves about one person in the entire country who is "allowed" to oppose grammars, or oppose secondary moderns as we should more accurately say. Probably you'll find that that one person had a grandparent who went to a grammar so no doubt that too will soon be added to the list.

Some good posts their Clavinova. I think a lot of the pro selective comprehensives are suffering from confirmation bias and would like nothing better than to create a secondary modern system just so they could dance around it in a circle pointing and singing "I told you so, I told you so".

If your lucky enough to get into one of these selective comps that can cope well with high attainers then I can see how its easy to be against grammars. Or if you live in an area where selective comps add value to your house, a grammar might be the last thing you would want. Just keep saying make all comps as good as my one.

How about being more positive and try and come up with a way to allow bright children to go to grammars and yet avoid going back to the old sec mod. At the very least stop branding less academics children as failures.

The same thing has happened with Brexit, a WW3 catastrophe was predicted, but guess what, it didn't happen. We are doing pretty well.

Well if people who went to grammars oppose grammars, what does that tell you? It tells you that clever people who are more likely to be able to analyse the evidence and make informed decisions think the idea sucks. And f people who went to grammars (and so should be ambassadors) think the idea is crap, then it must be really bad. Rather than them going to a grammar meaning that their argument can be easily dismissed, it actually gives it more weight.

Anyway, I think I'm the unique individual allowed to oppose grammars. I didn't go to one, and both my parents didn't. There weren't any grammars where they grew up, but being clever they both got O-levels, because their schools could manage with a mix of abilities. They both left school at 15 and managed to do pretty well for themselves, because social mobility for clever hard workers was a thing in those days. They're currently enjoying a comfortable retirement with foreign holidays every few months, which, believe me, is bloody far from the poverty they grew up in.

Comps don't brand less academic children as failures. Giving them a test at 11 which sorts them into passes and failures does that.

The same thing has happened with Brexit, a WW3 catastrophe was predicted, but guess what, it didn't happen. We are doing pretty well.

I've had a look, and I'm pretty sure we're actually still in the EU, enjoying the benefits that being in the EU brings. And no one has yet figured out how we can Brexit without fucking up the country, so the actual date for Brexit keeps being pushed back.

Well if people who went to grammars oppose grammars, what does that tell you?

That they are pulling the ladder up behind themselves and entrenching their privilege.

Well if you try that argument against Sam Freedman, you're a total idiot.

If my DC cannot get into a good school or even their nearest school, yet are academic (teased for being geeks).then why shouldn't we aspire to be the first in our family to try grammar?

How does that impact negatively on other parents who would also move heaven and earth to give their kids a good education? In an area of Brum where the grammars give 20-25 places to FSM?